Post by: wacki on August 17, 2008, 09:34:45 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/16/nuance-obama-almost-says-clarence-thomas-didnt-have-enough-experience-to-serve/
Post by: seeker_two on August 18, 2008, 01:09:59 AM
Let it go, people....
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 18, 2008, 07:30:59 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 18, 2008, 07:39:37 AM
I share Obama's dislike of Scalia.
You'd rather Heller have gone 4-5?
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 18, 2008, 07:58:16 AM
I share Obama's dislike of Scalia.
You'd rather Heller have gone 4-5?
I'd rather Heller would have been written by a guy like Thomas. Also, Raich could have at least gone 4-5.
Let us remember that Scalia voted to rip the medicine from the hands of a dying cancer patient, AND step on the Constitution in one convenient package.
Post by: roo_ster on August 18, 2008, 01:03:47 PM
Thomas, of course, is Top Constitutional Dawg on the SCOTUS.
I'd love to have nine Clarence Clones on the SCOTUS, but that is not within the realm of the possible.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 18, 2008, 01:13:03 PM
But it has to be remembered that he voted to trample the constitution and rip the medicine out of the hands of a dying cancer patient.
Post by: Ezekiel on August 18, 2008, 06:26:37 PM
I'd love to have nine Clarence Clones on the SCOTUS...
Yeah. I'd love a bunch of misogynist fools trapped in the "literal legality box."
Thank God that brand of radicalism is impossible.
With any luck, we get a more liberal majority over he next eight years.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 18, 2008, 06:35:42 PM
Quote
With any luck, we get a more liberal majority over he next eight years.
The kind of guys who also voted to rip the medicine from a dying cancer patient's hands? No thanks.
Post by: wacki on August 18, 2008, 06:49:15 PM
But it has to be remembered that he voted to trample the constitution and rip the medicine out of the hands of a dying cancer patient.
Explain plz
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 18, 2008, 06:57:52 PM
But it has to be remembered that he voted to trample the constitution and rip the medicine out of the hands of a dying cancer patient.
Explain plz
Gonzales v. Raich.
The majority held that the interstate commerce clause could be interpreted to read that in the case where a cancer patient that needed marijuana for medical purposes, grew the marijuana herself, and used it, without the weed ever traveling in interstate commerce, the clause still applied.
Scalia voted with the majority.
My personal opinion on the case is to agree with Justice Thomas, who wrote:
Quote
If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress Article I powersas expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clausehave no meaningful limits.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 25, 2008, 09:39:08 AM
Quote
With any luck, we get a more liberal majority over he next eight years.
The kind of guys who also voted to rip the medicine from a dying cancer patient's hands? No thanks.
To me the problem is judges who have preconceived ideas of what is "right" and make the law/interpretation fit their personal views, similar to what happens in a lot of death penalty cases. That goes for all of them.